Generally I agree with you about petitions. However, We The People was set up by the White House* and according to the rules a response is REQUIRED once a petition reaches a specific number of signatures. Sure, I get it, a response doesn't mean they'll do as requested. But it's at least being SEEN by the White House. And IF millions of people signed it it would be a strong message. What I don't get is how millions of people will change their Facebook icons to "support" a cause, even though that doesn't do ANYTHING. But signing a petition, which at least has some amount of legitimacy and "power", is unable to garner more than a few thousand signatures. Yeah, I'm pretty terrified about the future of this country too...and the world. It's already a pretty disgusting place and it's only getting worse. And there's very little at our disposal to affect meaningful change. So the fall-back is apathy. *No, I don't trust the White House, Congress, or the Senate to act in the peoples' interest - regardless of which party is in "control".
Out of curiousity, what do you think the country should do? Because on the surface it would seem a little ironic that someone criticizing people for apathy and complacency, wants the U.S.'s response to be apathy and complacency in regards to the use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians, hundreds of kids included. But I'm sure you're not actually encouraging the most powerful country in the world to be apathetic of human rights violations, I know it's not that black and white. So I wonder what your solution might be to ensure this doesn't continue to happen? And it will, if there is no international response.
Avoid being sucked into WWIII http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/502159/20130829/doomsday-syria-u-s-facebook-israel-soldiers.htm
I think we should stand back and let there BE an INTERNATIONAL response. Let the EU take the lead on this. Maybe impose some sort of sanctions. Heck - I could even understand being clandestinely involved, with a very few number of agents in the area that would be able to carry out a targeted hit if necessary. But that's as far as WE should take it. We certainly shouldn't be using our military. We need to stop meddling in other countries affairs when (a) we don't fully understand what the outcomes of our meddling will be and (b) we don't have our own domestic affairs in order. And I'm sorry but the whole "WMD", "innocent civilians" excuse is a bunch of bullshit. We routinely kill innocent civilians in "targeted" air strikes. But because the chemical compound used in those air strikes is merely an explosive agent it's supposedly ok? Basically, this isn't our fight. We don't need to come up with a solution - it's not our problem to solve. And we've routinely shown that when we try to solve other countries problems we generally make things worse. We need to stop policing the world - it's largely why we're so hated around the globe.
My sense is Obama's looking for a response for response's sake. Invent an objective and try to meet it because of the line in the sand thing.
Yup. An imaginary line in the sand. Who cares about the 100k of people killed? But because 1k were killed with a slightly different type of weapon now we get to flex our military muscle for the whole world to see!
yeah, he is looking for a way to save face, and that is all. we really should tak MaxiePs POV and send both sides bullets, sit back and eat popcorn
At most, I think no fly zones are what anyone should do. If they're delivering the gas by aircraft, shoot it down.
The nice thing about a line in the sand is that the wind can blow and erase that line. Then you just draw a new one in a new location.
The problem in Syria is the problem across the Arab world. There is a civil war that needs to occur and putting a cap on it simply increases the pressure. At some point in time, we need to focus on being energy independent, support Israel as strongly as we can, keep the Suez open and let them settle it. The Arab world seems to have a death wish. Far be it from us to stop them.
It's a civil war. That doesn't mean we shouldn't care, or make arrangements for refugees, or finding ways to help out on the humanitarian side, but butting our noses into every conflict in the world is a losing proposition. No one ordained the U.S. to be the world's policeman.
A different question on the same subject. What exactly was wrong with Assad as president of the country? I mean before the civil war started.
Most of the negatives against him seem to have come about due to the civil war, but not a cause of the war. Syria has at least seemed stable for decades. Until Iraq and a flood of refugees went to Syria.
Wait! Syria and Assad just want peace! http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17920536/...ugs-bushs-criticism-meets-assad/#.UiDPJzaceHQ Why are we so mean to them now?
Well ... just like Iraq, it was parceled out from the Sykes-Picot agreement and had all of the same arbitrary political divisions that forced lots of dissimilar groups together with hundreds of years of bad blood. I have little doubt that the Iraqi refugees were a catalyst, but the "powder" has been there for nearly a hundred years.
Ok, but Saddam had prisons full of political enemies, torture chambers, was militaristic, invaded neighboring countries, fought a prolonged war with Iran, and was evil. Syria sent troops into Lebanon, but not for conquest, and I'm pretty sure the troops didn't stay very long. I'm not seeing the evil, he must be overthrown part. Look at the USA. We send in the military to arrest the Boston Marathon bomber, and there was plenty of gunfire. Imagine if we had a disorderly uprising.
I never said Assad must be overthrown, but that doesn't change the fact that ruling Ba'athist regime under the first Assad and now the son aren't brutal and repressive. However, the way I view that regime is immaterial when it comes to what I think the U.S. response should be. I think we should stay the fuck out and mind our own business unless this civil war spills over its borders and directly threatens our allies in the region.
